Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053
Tom McCarran, Nicole Carpenter Efficiency Vermont March 8, 2018 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Executive Summary
Electric bikes, or e-bikes, are gaining in popularity as the technology improves and prices fall. In partnership with Burlington Electric Department and with assistance from Drive Electric Vermont, Local Motion, Old Spokes Home, VBike Solutions, and VECAN: Vermont Energy & Climate Action Network, Efficiency Vermont conducted a survey of Vermont e-bike owners to evaluate opportunities for improved energy efficiency in this market.
Project goals 1. Better understand the status of e-bike use in Vermont;
2. Identify the energy efficiency of various bike models; and
3. Develop a framework to characterize and evaluate the various e-bike equipment available in Vermont.
Survey methodology The online survey was distributed over the summer of 2017 with help from local organizations. More than 90 e-bike owners completed the survey.
Key findings • E-bikes are much more efficient than electric or conventional cars. • E-bikes were shown to displace meaningful amounts of driving miles. On average, e-bike owners displaced 760 driving miles annually. • E-bikes consume very little electricity, making incentives for electrical energy savings impractical. • E-bikes are difficult to compare directly across different types; further study of which e-bike types and/or models to incentivize is recommended. • Battery chargers are likely to use as much energy as the e-bikes they supply. Public and retailer education about charger efficiency and vampire loads may help to reduce wasted energy. • Battery chargers for e-bikes and other large consumer equipment showed sufficient efficiency opportunity to warrant further research.
2 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Table of Contents
Background...... 3
Legal Status of E-bikes...... 3
E-Bike Types...... 4
E-Bike Market...... 5
Survey Design and Promotion...... 5
Survey Participation...... 6
General E-Bike Results...... 7
Perceived Barriers to E-Bike use...... 11
Uses of E-Bikes...... 12
E-Bike Mileage...... 13
Displaced Driving Miles...... 15
Efficiency Program Considerations...... 17
Bicycle Energy Efficiency...... 17
Energy Efficiency of E-Bikes...... 18
Battery Charger Efficiency...... 23
Electrical Energy Efficiency Measures...... 24
Conclusions...... 26
Appendices...... 27
Bicycle Energy Calculations...... 27
Common E-Bike Powertrains...... 28
Vermont Legal Language...... 28
Model E-Bike legislation...... 29
Battery Charger Efficiency...... 30
Battery Metering...... 33
Complete Survey Text...... 34
3 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Background
E-Bikes are growing increasingly popular worldwide. Sales in China have been robust for years, with over 200 million e-bikes on the road as of 2016.1 The market is expanding rapidly in Europe, with over 1.6 million units sold in 20162. Worldwide annual sales are in the tens of millions, though in the U.S., sales were only in the hundreds of thousands as of 20163. U.S. sales increased rapidly in 2017.4
Vermont organizations are actively promoting e-bikes as a way to reduce automobile use. At least two organizations: VBike5 and Local Motion6, have established e-bike lending programs to allow locals to try out an e-bike for a few days. Burlington Electric Department is offering a rebate to customers purchasing e-bikes.7 Legal Status of E-bikes
E-Bike Classes E-Bikes are often placed into three classes,8 summarized below:
• Class 1 electric bicycle: Assists pedaling up to a maximum speed of 20mph, at which speed assistance stops. Will not provide electric power without pedaling. • Class 2 electric bicycle: A bicycle with working pedals, capable of propelling itself without pedaling to a maximum speed of 20mph. Motor does not operate above 20mph. May also have an assist mode. • Class 3 electric bicycle: Similar to Class 2, but limited to 28mph, and must have a speedometer.
Legality in Vermont9 Vermont law appears to consider a Motor-Assisted Bicycle to be essentially a Class 1 or Class 2 e-bike, as long as the motor output is under 1000 watts. Class 3 E-Bikes are considered Motor- Driven Cycles, and are treated as mopeds.
Vermont law treats a Motor-Assisted Bicycle just like a conventional bicycle, except that it prohibits use of these e-bikes on roads by persons under 16 years old.
E-bikes with a selectable “off-road mode” which allows for speeds over 20mph would probably not qualify as Motor-Assisted Bicycles under Vermont law.
1 www.bike-eu.com/home/nieuws/2016/4/china-bans-e-bike-use-in-major-cities-10126136 2 www.navigantresearch.com/research/electric-bicycles 3 cyclingindustry.news/u-s-electric-bike-market-up-at-least-50-says-market-analysts-ecycleelectric/ 4 www.bike-eu.com/sales-trends/nieuws/2017/9/usa-e-bike-market-doubles-in-units-and-value-10131284 5 www.vbikesolutions.org/take-it-home.html 6 www.localmotion.org/marigold 7 www.burlingtonelectric.com/ebike 8 peopleforbikes.org 9 See Appendix: Vermont Legal Language
4 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
E-Bikes Types
E-Bikes are built for particular uses. To provide an apples-to-apples comparison system, E-bikes in this report are classified according to the types below.
Bike Type Definitions:
Cargo Bikes: Bikes with an extended wheelbase and larger-than-standard racks for carrying cargo.
www.radpowerbikes.com
Fat Tire Bikes: Bikes with larger-than- standard tires, advertised as “Fat” bikes.
www.sondors.com
Mountain Bikes: Bikes with suspension, sold without standard cargo racks.
www.juicedbikes.com
Standard Bikes: “Commuter” bikes. Bikes without suspension, without fat tires, and with a standard wheel base. Most come with a rear rack
www.Electrabike.com
Modified Bikes: Retrofit kits may be installed on almost any type of bicycle to convert it into an e-bike.
dillengerelectricbikes.com
5 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
E-Bike Market
Efficiency Vermont set out to evaluate what role, if any, it should play in the e-bike market in Vermont. A study of the market was completed to gather the necessary background information.
Survey Design and Promotion
A survey of current and prospective e-bike owners was developed to assess the present applications of the technology in Vermont. The survey questions gathered information on reasons for purchase, e-bike usage for different types of trips, and owner satisfaction. The survey results are detailed below.
Efficiency Vermont and Burlington Electric Department would like to extend heartfelt thanks to all of the survey respondents as well as organizations who assisted in promoting the survey, including:
• Drive Electric Vermont
• Local Motion
• Old Spokes Home
• VBike Solutions
• VECAN: Vermont Energy & Climate Action Network
6 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Survey Participation
County Total Responses
Addison 6
Bennington 1
Chittenden 43
Grand Isle 1
Lamoille 1
Orange 1
Rutland 1
Washington 8
Windham 27 E-bike owners participating in survey, by zip Windsor 4 code Grand Total 93
Table 1 Figure 1
Non-E-Bike Owners E-Bike Owners Total Survey Starts Providing Useful Data Providing Useful Data
161 34 94
Table 2
E-bike owner responses came from across the state, but urban zip codes in Chittenden and Windham counties were most heavily represented.
10 Ninety Four e-bike owners provided useful responses to the survey. One of these did not provide a zip code.
7 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
General E-Bike Results
E-Bike Owner Satisfaction
2% 1%
18% Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied 79% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied
Figure 2
Owners reported overall high levels of satisfaction with their E-Bikes.
Count of Responses by E-Bike Ownership Years
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Count of Survey Responses Survey of Count 5
0 0 0.5 1 2 3+ Ownership Years Figure 3
Most respondents had purchased their e-bike within the last two years. Those who had recently acquired an e-bike might have been more likely to receive a survey link from their bike shop. Newer owners may have been more eager to share their thoughts. However, data seems to indicate that Vermonters are buying more e-bikes.
No trends emerged from time of ownership. Duration of ownership did not correlate with satisfaction or annual miles ridden.
8 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Common E-Bike Models
Respondents reported a wide variety of E-Bike models. Of the E-bikes reported, 36 were kits added to traditional bicycles, and 58 were designed as E-bikes. Over 35 unique models were reported.
Quantity Estimated Brand Model Type Reported in List Price Incremental Survey Cost
Bafang BBSHD Retrofit Kit 3 $1,066 $1,066
Clean Republic Hill topper Retrofit Kit 10 $799 $799
Dillenger Bafang Retrofit Kit 3 $962 $962
Dillenger Samsung Retrofit Kit 2 $629 $629
Electra Townie Standard 2 $2,599 $2,100
Evelo Aurora Standard 2 $2,499 $2,149
Juiced Cross current Mountain 2 $1,095 $895
Rad Power Radwagon Cargo 8 $1,599 $600
Rad Power Rover Fat Tire 2 $1,499 $1,299
Sondors Original Fat Tire 3 $499 $299
Yuba Boda Boda Cargo 2 $2,999 $1,500
Yuba Mundo Cargo 5 $3,799 $1,800
Yuba Spicy Curry Cargo 1 $4,499 $2,300
Table 2
Table 2 provides basic information on the most commonly reported E-bike models. The Incremental cost of an electric kit is an estimate based on the difference between the MSRP of the E-bike and the MSRP of a roughly comparable model without an electric kit. For retrofit kits, full cost of a typical kit is used. The average incremental cost of an electric bike was $1,261. Median incremental cost was $1,066. The Sondors Original was significantly less expensive than all other options, with an incremental cost of about $300.
9 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
E-Bike Types
Each model reported in the survey was categorized according to the bike types above. Modified conventional bikes were the most common. Mountain bikes and fat tire bikes were not heavily represented.
Total E-Bike Survey Responses By Bike Type
12% Cargo 22% Fat Tire 13% Modified 7% 5% Mountain Standard
35% Type Unknown
Figure 4
Reasons Cited for E-Bike Purchase
Respondents were asked to explain their reasons for getting an e-bike. Many cited more than one reason. Reasons were quantified based on interpretation of open-ended qualitative responses. Reasons for the original purchase did not always match reported actual usage.
Business Use
Longer Rides
Injury or Disability
Sustainability
Errands or Cargo Hauling
Recreation of Exercise
Replace or Displace Car Miles
Transporting Kids (or dogs)
Hills
Commuting
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 5
10 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
“To make hills easier. I am 77 years old.”
“Make the hills in Brattleboro easier when loaded down with groceries and pulling my son on a trail-a-bike.”
“To ensure I could use my bike as a commuter transportation method rather than just a hobby for exercise biking.”
Reasons Cited for Purchase of E-Bike
100% 90% 80% Sustainability 70% Errands or Cargo Hauling 60% Replace or Displace Car Miles
50% Recreation of Exercise
40% Transporting Kids (or dogs) 30% Commuting 20% Hills 10% 0% Cargo Fat Tire Modified Mountain Standard Unknown
Figure 6
Cargo e-bikes fill a unique niche: they allow cyclists to transport children or heavy items that would be difficult to load onto a conventional bicycle. The electric motor helps to overcome the weight of the cargo and the heavier frame. This type of e-bike may represent a unique transportation option.
11 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Perceived Barriers to E-Bike use
Many respondents chose to use open-ended fields to report on barriers to E-bike usage in Vermont. By far the most commonly cited obstacle was a lack of bike infrastructure in the form of road shoulders, bike lanes, and bike paths. Two respondents wished for access to public charging stations. Two others cited problems with maintenance support from local bike shops.
Citations of Barriers to E-Bike Uptake and Usage in Vermont
1% 2% Cost 2% Bike Shop Support Availability of charging 13% 2% Weather Bike Infrastructure
Figure 7
“As with other bikes, some roads just not safe enough. Narrow, hill, visibility problems, pavement edge drop off.”
“We need bike shops to make clear what make/models they support.”
“Wish there were bike paths connecting to other towns and places to charge them.”
Only two respondents cited lack of charging infrastructure as a problem. Most respondents likely found the range of their e-bike to be sufficient to recharge only at home. Adverse selection may be at work: many of those for whom charging would be inconvenient may not have opted to purchase an e-bike.
12 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Uses of E-Bikes
Participants were asked to break down their e-bike usage into four categories. Several respondents mentioned that they would have liked to see a category for transporting children.
Reported Uses of E-Bikes
23% Commuting 37% Errands Social 12% Exercise / Recreation 27%
Figure 8
These categories were intended to capture actual e-bike use, while the write-in response earlier captured the reasons that the respondent chose to purchase the e-bike. There is some overlap.
The ‘Exercise or Recreation’ category is important for energy use and displaced driving mileage calculations. Miles in this category should not be included when calculating automobile miles displaced.
Recreational use of e-bikes may be a drawback from an energy conservation standpoint. For example, an e-bike used exclusively for recreation with some amount of pedal assist would use more energy than a conventional bicycle. While users may see health benefits from exercise, recreational miles are a slight negative for energy saving programs.
Reported Uses By E-Bike Type
100% 90% 80%
70% Commuting 60% Errands 50% Social 40% Exercise / Recreation 30% 20% 10% 0% Cargo Fat Tire Modified Mountain Standard Unknown Figure 9
Type of use varied by type of e-bike.
13 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
E-Bike Mileage
Reported mileage was an open-ended quantitative question. This left it up to respondent interpretation. The wording of this question (#18) may have confused some respondents. All four seasons had a field for respondents to enter a mileage number. An example:
Question 18: 11 “Typically, how many miles do you ride your E-bike in a one week period during the following times of the year? (If you have had your E-bike for less than a year, please list the number of miles you plan to ride.) - Summer (June-August) - # of Miles Traveled on an Average Week”
Reported Annual E-Bike Mileage
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000 Each dot represents one respondent. 6,000 Annual Miles Ridden Annual Miles
4,000
2,000
0
Figure 10
Correction for outliers
Based on the distribution of the responses in Figure 10, outliers probably misread the question. Respondents may have missed the key phrase, “in a one week period’’ in question 18. To travel 15,000 miles on a bicycle in a year, a cyclist would have to average over 40 miles every day. These high mileages are greater than the average mileage for a car in the United States (13,500 miles per year).12 An e-bike rider at an average speed of 12 to 15 mph would need to be on the bike for more than 2.5 hours every single day of the year to achieve this mileage.
Red dots represent likely mis-reading of the mileage question. To correct for this, the outliers were divided by 13: the number of weeks in one season. This put them in the middle of the pack.
11 See Appendix: Complete Survey 12 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pubstats/
14 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Corrected Reported Annual E-Bike Mileage
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000 Each dot represents one respondent. 3,000
Annual Miles Ridden Annual Miles 2,000
1,000
0
Figure 11
After correction for outliers, the median annual self-reported e-bike mileage was 1,218 miles, and the mean was 1,440 miles.
Average Weekly E-Bike Miles by Season
50 46
40
32 30 25
20
8 10
0 Winter: Dec-Feb Spring: Mar-May Summer: Jun-Aug Fall: Sep-Nov
Figure 12
E-Bike Mileage varied predictably by season in Vermont.
15 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Displaced Driving Miles
Participants provided an estimate of the amount of non-recreational miles that they would have driven without an e-bike. These non-recreational miles will be referred to as essential miles.
If a respondent indicated that they exclusively used the bike for recreation, then their e-bike displaced zero driving miles. For essential use, respondents were asked to select one of four levels of driving displacement.
Survey Question 22: “You mentioned that you sometimes use your E-bike to commute and run errands. Prior to owning an E-bike would you typically have been driving to those places instead?”
Percentage Driving Response Choice: Level of Driving Displacement Displacement Assumption
Often - Would've driven more than 75% of time 87.5%
Sometimes - Would've driven 25-75% of the time 50%
Rarely - Would've driven less than 25% of the time 12.5%
Never 0%
Table 3
To estimate miles displaced, a percentage displacement was selected in the middle of each possible response range. This percentage was then applied to the total essential miles of each respondent to determine driving miles displaced. The average e-bike traveled 1,157 miles for essential purposes.
Though the question wording did not mention miles traveled in the social engagements category 13, these miles are assumed to be displaced at the same rate as commuting and errands. The question was presented to all respondents who claimed any essential miles.
On average, e-bikes displaced 760 driving miles. The median displaced mileage was 568.
Before correcting for the three outlying mileage responses as shown in Figure 11, the average e-bike displaced 940 driving miles, and the median e-bike displaced 580. An early snapshot of survey results appeared to indicate even higher mileage displacement. Unfortunately the early snapshot included all three uncorrected outliers, which were averaged into a smaller pool of respondents.
13 See Appendix: Complete Survey Text, Question 22
16 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Driving Displacement Responses
59 60
50
40
30
20 20
10 7 5 3 0 Never Recreational Rarely - Sometimes - Often - Use Only Would've driven Would've driven Would've driven less than 25% 25%-75% more than 75% of the time of the time of the time
Figure 13
Average Driving Miles Displaced by Type of E-Bike
900 837 839 800 790 742 722 700
600
500
400
295 300
200
100
0 Cargo Fat Tire Modified Mountain Standard Type Unknown
Figure 14
“Our E-bike, combined with a subscription to Carshare VT, has allowed our family to forego the expense of owning a primary motor vehicle. While we did a lot of conventional biking previously, the E-bike allows us to carry grocery loads and kids, and increases our range and speed.”
Fat tire bikes displaced fewer driving miles due to lower levels of both overall and essential mileage.
17 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Efficiency Program Considerations Bicycle Energy Efficiency
Figure 15 shows the energy required to overcome sources of resistance to propel a typical e-bike. These energy requirements were calculated assuming a 60lb bicycle and 165lb rider on typical e-bike tires. Hill climbing and acceleration are intermittent, while air drag and rolling resistance are present at all times that the bicycle is in motion.
Typical Bicycle Propulsion Energy
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150 Power Required (Watts) Required Power 100
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Speed Over Road (MPH)
Hill Climbing (5% Slope) Acceleration (0.5 M/s2) Rolling Resistance Air Drag
Figure 15
An e-bike motor on the theoretical bicycle would need to supply around 275W watts to maintain 20mph cruising speeds. A typical e-bike motor size is 350W, which should provide enough power to accelerate to 20mph on flat ground and maintain moderate speed on hills.
14 See Appendix: Bicycle Energy Calculations
18 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Two Ways to Look at Bicycle Efficiency
1.6 400
1.4 350
1.2 300
1.0 250
0.8 200
0.6 150 Miles per kWh Miles kWh per 100 Miles kWh 0.4 100
0.2 50
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Speed Over Road (MPH), Constant Speed on Flat Ground
kWh / 100 Miles Miles per kWh Figure 15
Efficiency drops rapidly with speed. Wind resistance is the most important factor. If an e-bike’s assistance is limited to 20MPH, and the rider always accelerates to this speed when possible, the e-bike might have an overall flat-ground cruising efficiency of about 70 miles per kWh, or about 1.4 kWh per 100 miles. At 10 MPH, cruising efficiency nearly triples to 181 miles per kWh, or 0.5 kWh per mile.
Intermittent hill climbing and acceleration will reduce overall efficiency in real-world scenarios. Some energy exerted for acceleration and hill climbing will be recovered while decelerating or rolling downhill, though much will be dissipated as heat while braking.
Energy Efficiency of E-Bikes
E-Bikes vary in their capabilities. Rider behavior ultimately determines efficiency. There is no single energy efficiency metric that can be easily used to compare e-bike models in a meaningful way.
Manufacturers often post minimum and maximum ranges. Using battery capacity and range, these ranges can yield estimates of energy efficiency. On average, the minimum range indicated a minimum efficiency of 1.9 kWh per 100 miles. The average maximum efficiency was 0.94 kWh per 100 miles.
19 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Advertised Minimum Advertised Maximum Brand Model Type Minimum Efficiency Maximum Efficiency Range (Miles) (kWh / 100 Miles) Range (Miles) (kWh / 100 Miles)
Bafang BBSHD Retrofit Kit
Clean Republic Hill topper Retrofit Kit
Dillenger Bafang Retrofit Kit 27 1.7 50 0.9
Dillenger Samsung Retrofit Kit 40 1.2 60 0.8
Electra Townie Standard 20 2.0 100 0.4
Evelo Aurora Standard 20 1.8 40 0.9
Juiced Cross current Mountain 19 2.0 37 1.0
Rad Power Radwagon Cargo 20 2.8 40 1.4
Rad Power Rover Fat Tire 20 2.8 40 1.4
Sondors Original Fat Tire 20 1.6 50 0.6
Yuba Boda Boda Cargo 50 1.1
Yuba Mundo Cargo 50 1.1
Yuba Spicy Curry Cargo 30 1.3 60 0.7
Average/Median 24 1.90 52 0.94
Table 4
In reality the maximum range of an e-bike is effectively unlimited, since the rider can supply 100% of power after the battery runs out. The advertised maximum range probably assumes a low level of assistance.
These efficiency estimates line up well with the bicycle efficiencies from Figure 16, once some amount of hill climbing and acceleration is added.
To account for some manufacturer optimism, maximum efficiency was assumed to be 1 kWh per 100 miles, and minimum efficiency was assumed to be 2 kWh per 100 miles. These averages were used to calculate total energy use for all e-bike types. A breakdown in efficiency by bike type was not possible due to limited available data.
20 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Assistance Levels Participants were asked to indicate the percentage of time that they spent at each of four assistance levels.
Using assumed electric power percentages, and the respondents’ reported time in each assistance level, an average level of assistance power is calculated for each respondent.
Average E-Bike Assistance Level
6% 19% Pedal Only 28% Light Assist Heavy Assist
48% Throttle Only
Figure 16
Based on survey responses, the motor provided about 40% of average e-bike propulsion energy, while the rider provided the remaining 60%. Motor assistance varied slightly by E-bike type, but assistance levels did not vary dramatically. Fat tire bike riders generally used a higher level of assistance. Modified bike riders generally used slightly lower levels of assistance.
Assumed Share of Motive Assist Level From Survey Assumed kWh / 100 Miles Power from Electric Drive
No Motor Assist - Pedaling Only 0% 0
Light Assist 33% 1
High Assist 66% 1.5
Throttle Only - No Pedaling 100% 2
Table 5
Fat Tire bikes may require more assistance to overcome high tire rolling resistance and resistance to acceleration due to heavy wheels. Modified bikes may not assist as smoothly, or may have a throttle only and no assist function. For this reason motor assistance may be less convenient for the rider. Modified bikes in this survey may also have been built by bicycle enthusiasts who were already accustomed to largely human-powered riding. Cargo bikes generally had higher-wattage motors. Lower levels of assistance could have provided more wattage on some cargo bikes.
21 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Average Electric Assist Power Level by E-Bike Type
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Cargo Fat Tire Modified Mountain Standard Type Unknown
Figure 17
Motor efficiency metrics for e-bike DC motors are not readily available. Motor efficiency is unlikely to vary substantially: a less-efficient motor requires a larger battery to provide the desired range and power. E-bike manufacturers face cost tradeoffs between more efficient motors and larger batteries.
Since field testing of energy efficiency was beyond the scope of this project, level of assistance was the best proxy available for relative efficiency.
Energy Consumed By E-Bikes When the efficiency assumptions from Table 4 are applied to reported assist levels, e-bikes averaged 1.02 kWh per 100 miles. Relative efficiencies varied according to reported assistance levels. Overall, the average e-bike motor from the survey would consume 14.9 kWh per year.
Since each bicycle class has unique characteristics, a universal comparison of e-bike efficiency is very difficult to achieve. A retrofit kit on a lightweight racing bike would probably propel a rider many more miles per kilowatt-hour than a 60-pound electric cargo bike could. However, the added utility of the cargo bike makes a direct efficiency comparison akin to comparing the efficiency of a motorcycle to that of a minivan. A motorcycle can move very efficiently, but a minivan can do a lot of things that the motorcycle cannot.
22 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Energy Consumed per Mile Displaced When considering e-bikes as an energy-saving measure, simple efficiency per mile is not necessarily a good way to compare e-bikes to automobiles. Not all e-bike miles replace auto miles, but e-bikes are using energy for every mile traveled with electric assistance. When an e-bike is using energy for mileage that does not displace auto miles, this is energy that would not otherwise have been consumed. A useful metric may be to divide the total energy use of the e-bike by the total car miles displaced, as shown in Figure 18.
Estimated kWh Used per 100 Driving Miles Displaced
3.5
3.04 3.0
2.5 2.34 2.31 2.19
2.0 1.83 1.71
1.5
1.0
.5
0 Cargo Fat Tire Modified Mountain Standard Type Unknown
Figure 18
On average, e-bikes consumed 1.96 kWh per 100 driving miles displaced.
Rider Behavior Rider behavior will have a dramatic effect on efficiency. If a rider often choses low or no assistance, efficiency will be high. If a rider never pedals and always uses a throttle, then efficiency will be much lower, but still much better than the efficiency of an automobile.
Weight Bicycle weight matters. Acceleration and hill-climbing are greatly impacted by bicycle weight, and these are times when an e-bike motor is likely to be engaged. With motors and batteries, e-bikes are bound to be heavier than comparable conventional bikes. However, weight also varies with utility. Cargo bikes are heavy because they are strengthened for extra cargo capacity. The survey did not ask about the weight of cargo being carried.
23 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Fat Tires Fat tires have a negative impact on efficiency. The weight of heavier wheels has a double negative effect on acceleration, since wheels must be accelerated rotationally. Higher rolling resistance of fat tires will require more power input at all times. However, fat tires may provide a sense of security for year-round biking, allowing for more winter use. The survey results indicate that fat bikes may displace fewer driving miles than other types.
Modified Bikes with Retrofit Kits Some retrofit kits such as the Hill Topper operate by throttle only. Without the convenience of an automatic assist, it is possible that power from these kits is used only intermittently for acceleration and hill climbing. E-bikes with assistance may tend to use the motor more often for maintaining speed.
Battery Charger Efficiency
An existing e-bike battery charger at the Efficiency Vermont office was metered for power use. Figure 19 represents a single charge cycle with a partially discharged battery.
The charger used an average of 1.7 Watts when plugged in with no battery. It used an average of 2.4 Watts when connected to a fully-charged battery. These nonproductive energy uses are known as ‘vampire’ loads.
Example E-Bike Battery Charger Energy Use
120
100
80
60
Watts 40
20
0 1:17:00 0:11:00 3:51:00 2:12:00 5:19:00 1:39:00 4:13:00 1:28:00 3:18:00 1:50:00 2:01:00 4:57:00 1:06:00 2:23:00 3:07:00 2:56:00 2:45:00 4:35:00 3:29:00 2:34:00 4:24:00 5:30:00 0:22:00 0:33:00 4:02:00 3:40:00 5:08:00 4:46:00 0:44:00 0:00:00 0:55:00 Time (H:MM:SS)
Figure 19
24 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
If an e-bike battery were left on this charger at all times when the bike was not in use, the charger itself might consume 22 kWh per year. This vampire load exceeds the energy that an average e-bike from the survey might consume for propulsion. If charge cycle inefficiency is accounted for, the charger’s consumption will be even higher.15 Chargers of this type can be expected to achieve 80%-85% charge efficiency.
E-bike battery chargers may actually be wasting more energy than e-bikes are putting to use.
The Department Of Energy’s analysis of battery chargers on the market in 2016 found that ‘best in market’ battery chargers were nearly four times as efficient as baseline battery chargers. A baseline battery charger in the e-bike class could consume up to 120 kWh per year, on top of the energy consumed by the associated e-bike. The ‘best in market’ charger would only consume 33 kWh per year.16
As of 2017 there are no nationwide standards for battery charger efficiency.
New federal battery charger efficiency standards will be in effect for all chargers manufactured after June 13, 2018. These standards would require a charger for a typical e-bike battery of 500 Watt-hours to waste no more than 41.3 kWh per year.17
Electrical Energy Efficiency Measures
Battery Chargers Though e-bike propulsion efficiency is subject to many variables, battery charger efficiency is relatively straightforward. Even under upcoming federal efficiency standards, an e-bike battery charger may waste a significant amount of energy.
Average E-Bike Energy D.O.E. Compliant Average E-Bike Plus Used for Propulsion Battery Charger for D.O.E. Compliant (Based on Survey) 500 W-h Battery Battery Charger
kWh total (1,440 miles) 14.7 + 41.3 = 56.0
kWh / 100 mi 1.0 + 2.9 = 3.9
kWh / 100 driving miles 2.0 + 5.4 = 7.4 displaced (760 miles average)
Table 6
An average e-bike paired with a D.O.E. compliant charger might consume 7.4 kWh per 100 driving miles displaced.
15 See Appendix: Battery Metering Calculations 16 See Appendix: Battery Chargers on the Market 17 See Appendix: Battery Charger Classification
25 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
The Department of Energy will publish battery charger test results in its compliance certification database once the new rule takes effect18. As of November 2017, Energy Star has removed its battery charger program, but an updated version may arrive in 2018.
E-bike battery chargers may consume more energy than the bikes themselves, and may have much more quantifiable energy efficiency metrics. An incremental cost increase of a few dollars may be able yield savings of 10kWh per year or more.19
Challenges for a Battery Charger Efficiency Program Battery chargers are generally sold paired with e-bike batteries and may account for only 1% to 2% of total e-bike cost. Financial incentives of a few dollars at the time of purchase are unlikely to have much impact on a consumer’s decision about a $1,500 e-bike.
E-bike retailers might become interested in providing incentivized after-market battery chargers as an additional revenue source. However, correct battery and charger pairing is crucial for battery life and performance.
Circumventing Battery Charger Inefficiency The most cost-effective way to minimize charger vampire loads may be to switch off the charger when not in use. A simple countdown timer product like the Belkin Conserve Socket20 could be an effective way to eliminate vampire load losses. The user would press a start button to start the charger. After six hours, the timer would shut the charger off.
This example timer product costs about $15, and could save 10 to 20 kWh per e-bike, per year. If battery chargers continue to present a relatively large electrical savings opportunity for e-bikes, an energy efficiency program could consider partnering with e-bike retailers to offer a rebate on countdown timers to e-bike owners, or offer discounted timers at the time of e-bike purchase.
Displacing Electric Vehicle Miles as an Efficiency Measure Electric automobiles (EVs) on the market in 2017 can achieve efficiencies of about 25 kWh per 100 miles21. An ebike alone could displace over 90% of the energy used by an electric vehicle on a per mile basis. Depending on charging assumptions, an ebike could displace 130-175 kwh that would have been used by the EV. An electric bike can be a societally cost effective measure in offsetting electric vehicle miles using the current State of Vermont net present value screening tool and certain assumptions on cost, charger efficiency, and maintenance. More work needs to be done to determine how electric bikes fit into the Efficiency Vermont portfolio.
Behavioral Energy Savings E-bike users can save energy and increase range by operating at low motor assistance levels and by avoiding high speeds under power. However, savings from these behavioral changes will be in the single digits of kilowatt-hours. Unless e-bike use becomes much more widespread, a program to encourage behavioral energy savings would not be cost-effective.
18 https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data 19 See Appendix: Battery Chargers on the Market 20 http://www.belkin.com/us/p/P-F7C009/ 21 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
26 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Conclusions
E-bikes in the survey did displace driving miles, and were significantly more efficient than the most efficient electric cars on the market. E-bikes are difficult to compare directly across different types. Future program managers should engage in further study of which e-bikes types and/or models to incentivize.
E-Bike Classes Class 3 e-bikes cannot legally be used on roads in Vermont22, and therefore cannot legally displace driving miles. Class 3 e-bikes would be poor candidates an efficiency program targeting driving mileage displacement.
E-Bike Types Fat tire bikes are inherently less efficient than bikes with conventional tires, and are oriented toward recreational off-road use. They may displace fewer driving miles than other e-bikes, at lower efficiencies.
Electric drive systems have the ability to make a heavy, slow bicycle feel weightless and fast. This could make cargo bikes an attractive new option for users who need to carry groceries or children. Fat bikes will feel similarly weightless, but without the practical benefits of cargo bikes.
Relative Efficiency of E-Bikes E-bikes consume very little energy relative to purchase price. An electrical energy efficiency program to incentivize some e-bikes over others would be unable to cost-effectively influence consumer choice of e-bikes.
Battery Chargers Battery chargers are likely to use as much energy as e-bikes. Public and retailer education about charger efficiency and vampire loads may help to reduce wasted energy. A generalized vampire-load reduction program may be able to apply to e-bikes and other larger battery- powered equipment, like lawnmowers. Large battery-powered equipment is becoming more common as battery prices fall. Further research will be required to incorporate battery chargers into an efficiency program.
22 See Appendix: Vermont Legal Language
27 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Appendices
Bicycle Energy Calculations Assumptions:
• Rider mass: 75 kg
• M: Bicycle mass 27 kg
• Mw: Wheel Mass: 2 kg
• A: Acceleration: 0.5 M/s2
• S: Slope: 5%
• G: Gravity: 9.8M/s2
• Ad: Air Density: 1.225 kg/m3
• Cd: Drag Coefficient * Cross-sectional area: 0.5
• RR: Rolling Resistance Coefficient: 0.005
• V: Speed over road (variable) M/s
Calculations:
• Speed is in meters per second
• Drive train efficiency is considered to be 100%
• Air Drag: 0.5*(Ad)*(V3)*(Cd) = Power Watts
• Rolling Resistance: (V)*(M)*(G)*(RR) = Power Watts
• Climbing: (V)*(M)*(G)*(S) = Power Watts
• Acceleration: (V)*(M+Mw)*(A) = Power Watts
28 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Common E-Bike Powertrains
Battery Watt- Brand Model Type Battery Volts Motor Watts Hours
Bafang BBSHD Retrofit Kit 48 504 1000
Clean Republic Hill topper Retrofit Kit 36 Varies 350
Dillenger Bafang Retrofit Kit 36 468 350
Dillenger Samsung Retrofit Kit 36 468 250
Electra Townie Standard 36 396 250
Evelo Aurora Standard 36 360 250
Juiced Cross current Mountain 48 374 350
Rad Power Radwagon Cargo 48 557 750
Rad Power Rover Fat Tire 48 557 750
Sondors Original Fat Tire 36 317 350
Yuba Boda Boda Cargo 48 557 350
Yuba Mundo Cargo 48 557 750
Yuba Spicy Curry Cargo 36 396 250
Average/Median 36 459 462
Vermont Legal Language
From Vermont Act 158:
* * * Motor-Assisted Bicycles * * *
Sec. 56. 23 V.S.A. § 4 is amended to read:
§ 4. DEFINITIONS
Except as may be otherwise provided herein, and unless the context otherwise requires in statutes relating to motor vehicles and enforcement of the law regulating vehicles, as provided in this title and 20 V.S.A. part 5, the following definitions shall apply:
* * * (45)(A) “Motor-driven cycle” means any vehicle equipped with two or three wheels, a power source providing up to a maximum of two brake horsepower and having a maximum piston or rotor displacement of 50 cubic centimeters if a combustion engine is used, which will propel the vehicle, unassisted, at a speed not to exceed 30 miles per hour on a level road surface,
29 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
and which is equipped with a power drive system that functions directly or automatically only, not requiring clutching or shifting by the operator after the drive system is engaged. As motor vehicles, motor-driven cycles shall be subject to the purchase and use tax imposed under 32 V.S.A. chapter 219 rather than to a general sales tax. An Neither an electric personal assistive mobility device nor a motor-assisted bicycle is not a motor-driven cycle.
(B)(i) “Motor-assisted bicycle” means any bicycle or tricycle with fully operable pedals and equipped with a motor that:
(I) has a power output of not more than 1,000 watts or 1.3 horsepower; and
(II) in itself is capable of producing a top speed of no more than 20 miles per hour on a paved level surface when ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds.
(ii) Motor-assisted bicycles shall be regulated in accordance with section 1136 of this title.
* * *
Sec. 57. 23 V.S.A. § 1136(d) is added to read:
(d)(1) Except as provided in this subsection, motor-assisted bicycles shall be governed as bicycles under Vermont law, and operators of motor-assisted bicycles shall be subject to all of the rights and duties applicable to bicyclists under Vermont law. Motor-assisted bicycles and their operators shall be exempt from motor vehicle registration and inspection and operator’s license requirements. A person shall not operate a motor-assisted bicycle on a sidewalk in Vermont. No. 158 Page 77 of 104 2016
(2) A person under 16 years of age shall not operate a motor-assisted bicycle on a highway in Vermont.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall interfere with the right of municipalities to regulate the operation and use of motor-assisted bicycles pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 2291(1) and (4), as long as the regulations do not conflict with this subsection.
Model E-Bike legislation http://peopleforbikes.org/our-work/e-bikes/policies-and-laws/
30 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Battery Charger Efficiency
Battery Chargers on the Market 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket Number EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005] RIN: 1904-AB57 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers
Table IV-9 Product Class 6 (Medium-Energy, High-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results
EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3
EL Descriptions Baseline Intermediate Best in Market Max Tech
24-Hour Energy (Wh) 891.6 786.1 652.00 466.20
Maintenance Mode Power (W) 10.6 6.0 0.50 0.0
No-Battery Mode Power (W) 10.0 5.8 0.30 0.0
Off-Mode Power (W) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) 120.60 81.72 33.53 8.15
Incremental MSP ($) $18.48 $21.71 $26.81 $127.00
31 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Battery Charger Classification 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket Number EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005] RIN: 1904-AB57 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
Title 10 › Chapter II › Subchapter D › Part 430 › Subpart C › §430.32
Special Product Product class Rated battery Maximum UEC characteristic or class description energy (Ebatt**) (kWh/yr) battery voltage (as a function of Ebatt**)
Inductive 1 Low-Energy ≤ 5 Wh 3.04 Connection*
Low-Energy, 2 < 100 Wh < 4 V 0.1440 * E + 2.95 Low-Voltage batt
For Ebatt < 10 Wh, Low-Energy, 1.42 kWh/y 3 4-10 V Medium-Voltage Ebatt ≥ 10 Wh,
0.0255 * Ebatt + 1.16 Low-Energy, 4 > 10 V 0.11 * E + 3.18 High-Voltage batt
Medium-Energy, 5 100-3000 Wh < 20 V 0.0257 * E + .815 Low-Voltage batt
Medium-Energy, 6 ≥ 20 V 0.0778 * E + 2.4 High-Voltage batt
7 High-Energy > 3000 Wh 0.0502 * Ebatt + 4.53
*Inductive connection and designed for use in a wet environment (e.g. electric toothbrushes). **Ebatt = Rated battery energy as determined in 10 CFR part 429.39(a).
32 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Battery Charger Test Conditions Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers
Table 5.3—Battery Charger Usage Profiles
Threshold Charges Product class Hours per day charge (n) time
Rated Special Active + battery characteristic Standby Off Number No. Description maintenance Hours energy or battery (tsb) (toff) per day (ta&m) (Ebatt) voltage
Inductive 1 Low-Energy ≤5 Wh 20.66 0.10 0.00 0.15 137.73 Connection
Low-Energy, 2 <100 Wh <4 V 7.82 5.29 0.00 0.54 14.48 Low-Voltage
Low-Energy, 3 <100 Wh 4-10 V 6.42 0.30 0.00 0.10 64.20 Medium-Voltage
Low-Energy, 4 <100 Wh >10 V 16.84 0.91 0.00 0.50 33.68 High-Voltage
Medium-Energy, 100- 5 <20 V 6.52 1.16 0.00 0.11 59.27 Low-Voltage 3000 Wh
Medium-Energy, 100- 6 ≥20 V 17.15 6.85 0.00 0.34 50.44 High-Voltage 3000 Wh
7 High-Energy >3000 Wh 8.14 7.30 0.00 0.32 25.44
Most e-bike batteries would fall into Product Class 6: “Medium-Energy, High-Voltage.” Many e-bikes come with several battery size options
33 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Battery Metering
Equipment Metering was done with an Onset HOBO UX120-018 plug load logger. The charger model was CP100L1002. The battery being charged was a BiXPower BX3632H-809 36V 300Wh Li-ion battery.
Calculations
Reference Value Source
M 1440 Average E-bike miles Survey
ee 1.02 e-Bike kWh per 100 miles Calculated from Survey Data
E 14.7 e-Bike kWh energy consumption (M / 100) * ee
Mt 15 Miles per round trip Assumed
T 96 Trips per year M / Mt
Ht 6 Average hours per trip Assumed time away from charger.
Hs 576 Hours away from charger Ht * T
Ps 1.7 Watts standby Power meter
Pm 2.4 Watts maintenance Power meter
Pce 85% Charge efficiency assumption Assumed
1.0 Standby kWh Hs * Ps / 1000
21 Maintenance kWh (8760 - Hs) * Pm / 1000
2.6 Charge cycle wasted kWh (E / Pce) - E
24.6 Sum of Wasted kWh
34 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Complete Survey Text
Efficiency Vermont E-Bike Survey - 2017
E-Bike Owner: E-Bike Owner: E-Bike Owner: Bike Type Use Satisfaction
Owns 1 or more E-bikes
Intro Screener Demographics Wrap-up
Does not own an E-bikes
Non E-Bike Owner: General End Survey
Survey
I. Intro
Q1. Efficiency Vermont is seeking to better understand how Vermonters are using their electric bikes (a.k.a. E-bikes). Your feedback will be anonymous, so we encourage you to be as candid and accurate as possible in your responses. This survey will take approximately 5 minutes to complete and will be used to inform future energy efficiency programs. Thank you for your time and feedback.
II. Screener
Q2. How many, if any, electric bikes (E-bikes) do you personally own?
None 1 2 3 or more
III. Non-E-Bike Owner: General
Q3. Do you plan on purchasing an E-bike within the next 12 months?
Yes No Don't know
35 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
If "Do you plan on purchasing an E-bike within the next 12 months?" Yes Is Selected Display This Question:
Q4. What is the main reason you want an E-bike?
IV. E-Bike Owner: Bike Type
If "How many, if any, electric bikes (E-bikes) do you personally own?" 2 Is Selected -Or- "How many, if any, electric bikes (E-bikes) do you personally own?" 3 or more Is Selected Display This Question:
Q9. For the following questions, please only consider the E-bike you use most frequently.
Q10. Which of the following best describes your E-bike?
My bike was designed as an E-bike. My bike is a traditional bicycle that was modified using an E-bike kit. I am unsure.
If "Which of the following best describes your E-bike? My bike was designed as an E-bike." Is Selected -Or- "Which of the following best describes your E-bike?" I am unsure. Is Selected Display This Question:
Q11. Please select the make/brand of your E-bike. (e.g. Trek)
8Fun Cube Evelo Green World Bike Moustache Sondors Yuba A2B Currie Tech Everly Haibike Nicolai Specialized Zehus
Add-E Cutler Cycles EVO Hebb OHM SSR Zeitgeist
Aerobic Cruiser Dahon eVox Hi-Power Cycles Optibike Stealth OTHER Ariel Rider Daymak eZip HP Velotechnik Organic Transit Stromer DON'T REMBEMBER Electron Diamondback F4Q IES Outrider Sun Benelli Dillenger Falco iGo Pegego Sun Seeker Benno E-BikeKit Falcon IZIP Polaris Super Pedestrain BESV E-Glide Faraday Jetson Populo Surface Big Cat E-Joe Felt Electric Juiced Prodeco Tern Biktrix E-Lux Flight Kalkhoff Public Torker Biomega Emazing FLX Kranked Rad Power Trek BionX e-RAD FlyKly KTM Raleigh Urban Arrow Biria Easy Motion Focus Lapierre Reveio Vanmoof Binni eFlow Ford Leed Ridde Vela Blix EG Freway Leisger Pubbee Vilano BM Elby Gazelle Liberty Schwinn Vintage Bodhi Electra GenZe Sport Technik Scott Virtue Box Bike EBO Giant Magnum ShareRoller Volt Brompton ElectroBike Go-Ped Mando Smart Volton Bulls Energie Cycles Gocycle Marrs SmartMotion Watskea Cannondale Enzo Golden Motor Moar Snelheid Cycles Worksman Clean Republic Prodigy Grace Motiv Solex Xtracycle
36 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
If "Which of the following best describes your E-bike? My bike was designed as an E-bike." Is Selected -Or- "Which of the following best describes your E-bike?" I am unsure. Is Selected
Q12. Please write in the model of your E-bike. (e.g. Trek Powerfly)
If "Which of the following best describes your E-bike? My bike is a traditional bicycle that was modified using an E-bike kit". Is Selected
Q13. Please select the make/brand of your E-bike kit? (e.g. Dillenger)
If "Which of the following best describes your E-bike? My bike is a traditional bicycle that was modified using an E-bike kit." Is Selected
Q14. Please write in the model of your E-bike kit. (e.g. Dillenger Arc Street 250W)
Q15. When did you modify/buy your E-bike?
Less than 6 months ago More than 6 months, but less than a year ago More than 1 year, but less than 2 years ago More than 2 years, but less than 3 years ago More than 3 years ago
Q16. What was the main reason you got an E-bike?
IV. E-Bike Owner: Use
If "How many, if any, electric bikes (E-bikes) do you personally own?" 2 Is Selected -Or- "How many, if any, electric bikes (E-bikes) do you personally own?" 3 or more Is Selected Display This Question:
Q17. For the remainder of the survey, please consider all of the E-bikes you own.
Q18. Typically, how many miles do you ride your E-bike in a one week period during the following times of the year? (If you have had your E-bike for less than a year, please list the number of miles you plan to ride.)
# of Miles Traveled on an Average Week
Winter (December-February)
Spring (March-May)
Summer (June-August)
Fall (September-November)
37 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Q19. This next question focuses on the average amount of time you spend in different E-bike settings. "Assist" is defined as the level of power provided by your E-bike motor. Some E-bikes may have a different number of motor settings than what's listed below. If this is the case, please estimate to the best of your ability.
Q20. On an average E-bike ride, what percent of your time is spent in each of the following settings? (Note: Total must equal 100%.) No motor assist; pedaling only Light assist with motor while pedaling High assist with motor while pedaling Throttle only; no pedaling
Q21. Please indicate the percent of time you use your E-bike for the following activities. (Note: Total must equal 100%.) Commuting to/from work Errands Traveling to/from social engagements Exercise / Recreation
If "Please indicate the percent of time you use your E-bike for the following activities." Commuting to/from work Is Greater Than 0 -Or- "Please indicate the percent of time you use your E-bike for the following activities" Errands Is Greater Than 0 -Or- "Please indicate the percent of time you use your E-bike for the following activities." Traveling to/from social engagements Is Greater Than 0 Display This Question:
Q22. You mentioned that you sometimes use your E-bike to commute and run errands. Prior to owning an E-bike would you typically have been driving to those places instead?
Often - Would've driven more than 75% of time Sometimes - Would've driven 25-75% of the time Rarely - Would've driven less than 25% of the time Never
VI. E-Bike Owner: Satisfaction Q23. Overall, how satisfied are you with your E-bike?
Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Extremely dissatisfied
38 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053 Electric Bikes: Survey and Energy Efficiency Analysis
Q24. What, if any, other thoughts would you like to share about your E-bike?
VII. Demographics
Q5. What is your zip code?
VIII. Wrap-up
Q6. That wraps up our survey. Thank you so much for your participation!
Q7. If you'd like to be entered into our drawing for one of three $100 gift cards to your local bike shop, please enter your email address below. (Your email will be kept confidential, and will not distributed or used for promotional/marketing purposes.)
Q8. If you know a fellow E-biker that may interested in taking this survey, please share their email address below and we'll send them a link.
39 || EFFICIENCY VERMONT, DSS TECH DEMO REPORT: 000-053